There is a way of satisfying the need for a dispute resolution mechanism in online internet consumer disputes.
See http://www.endispute.co.uk/cliff/israem.htm This system is in place it just has to be used. Cliff Dilloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article <v03110700b8d5d7025446@[66.32.205.81]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Freed) wrote: > Micheal raises an interesting point. > Because of the need for a global pay > portal with reliable customer support > in case of questions and/or disputes, > I went with Kagi.com for my ebook sales > http://globalsense.info/globalsense.html. > Have not yet run into any disputes since > the book went online, but I'd be curious to > hear if people think this approach helps or > hinders re. the core issues Micheal raised. > Thanks, > -- ken > > Ken Freed > Media Journalist > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Publisher, Media Visions Journal > http://www.media-visions.com > > "Deep literacy makes global sense." > ' > > > > > >(original message) > >From: Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Hague Convention list > > > >> Dear co-Hague listers- > >> > >> I downloaded the Ausralian government's paper on Dispute Resolution > > in > >> Electronic Commerce that Dan Svantesson kindly pointed us to > >> (http://www.ecommerce.treasury.gov.au/) and have been studying it. > > The > >> first thing that caught my attention was the prefatory quote from a > >> statement by an FTC official: > >> > >> "A consumer is not going to purchase a product (online) if he or she > >> believes that there's no way to get redress if that product is > > defective > >> or, indeed, if the product never arrives. The problem is obviously > >> compounded because of the cross-border nature of transactions and the > >> fact that buyer and seller often � (are) very far away. And � > > everyone > >> agrees on the goal, which is consumers have to feel safe. The > > question > >> is how to do it. > >> Traditionally, of course, the recourse has been to judicial remedies, > >> administrative and judicial agencies �But as with all things, the > >> internet forces us to confront the challenge of whether this > >> traditional way of resolving these issues works in this new > > environment, > >> and I think one of the things that we have to do is recognise that > > the > >> technology that enables these transactions may also provide for > >> a new means for resolving them in a quick, efficient and effective > >> manner that makes the traditional ways of resolving them maybe > >> second-best alternatives in this new environment. � > >> �The OECD (in 1999) produced guidelines for consumer protection in > >> electronic commerce that set a good substantive level of protection. > >> (The OECD calls) for the development of alternative dispute > >> resolution, and so really the next step is to say, okay we have got > >> these protections, how are they going to be translated in a way that > >> consumers really can make use of them? And that's your task today." > >> (Andy Pincus, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, United > > States > >> of America. From an opening address to a forum on Alternative Dispute > >> Resolution for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online > >> Marketplace, Washington DC, June 2000) > >> > >> While I do not disagree with the apparent intention of this > > statement, > >> however badly put, it strikes me as disingenuous for a number of > >> reasons. > >> > >> First, Andrew Pincus was the general counsel for the US Department of > >> Commerce when it was setting up ICANN, the US-approved regulator of > > the > >> Internet domain name system (and much else besides). ICANN is a > >> consorcium - a nice way of saying "monopoly" or "combine" - of > >> representatives of big-business telcos, network operators, WIPO, and > > IP > >> lawfirms that has steadfastly refused to give Internet users such as > >> consumers any say in its operations. Yet, in spite of ICANN's > > rejection > >> of the participation of consumers and other Internet users in its > >> policy-making, the DoC and its general counsel Andrew Pincus approved > >> ICANN and gave it sole control of the Internet's root database, > > which is > >> to say, the Doc/ICANN can now remove any domain name they want from > > the > >> Internet, including those of whole countries (they have done this) as > >> well as of individuals and entities. This enormous power is presently > >> wielded without any input whatsoever from Internet users and > > consumers, > >> as the direct result of Andrew Pincus and the US DoC denying users > > and > >> consumers access to the decision-making process. (There are > > documents, > >> including written official statements by Andrew Pincus, to > > substantiate > >> this.) > >> > >> Secondly, although it is not clear whom Mr. Pincus was addressing, > > the > >> statement is apparently made on behalf of the US Federal Trade > >> Commission. Now, just what has the FTC done until today to ensure > > that > >> there is consumer protection in cross-border B2C Internet > > transactions, > >> besides provide a room where consumer protection representatives can > >> meet in Washington? I don't recall a single member of the FTC > > speaking > >> out, at any of the Hague Convention meetings I attended, on the dire > >> need for the protection of consumers' legal rights to be > > incorporated in > >> the Hague treaty. On the contrary, the FTC has been, so far as I can > >> tell, sitting by and allowing international business to lobby the > > Hague > >> delegations to keep consumer protection out of the Convention, as it > >> looks likely will now happen. > >> > >> What, in the end, is Mr. Pincus' and the FTC's interest in > > promoting, or > >> pretending to promote, alternative dispute resolution on the > > Internet? > >> Is it to help consumers in their struggle for some power to offset > > that > >> of online entrepreneurs, with their unfair adhesion contracts, or is > > it > >> to give business a means of escaping the jurisdiction of courts > > through > >> some sham industry self-regulation process like the ADR process (the > >> "UDRP") of ICANN? The blatant discrepancies between the statement of > > Mr. > >> Pincus prefaced to the Australian government's paper, and the actual > >> actions of the US FTC and DoC, give one legitimate cause to wonder. > >> > >> M.S. > > > > >
